Case law forum

BIG TIME · 04-24-2007, 04:54 AM

I registered here forever ago, but never posted here until now. Howdy everyone! I see a lot of familiar names from the late AoC and it's good to see you're still fighting the good fight.

Excellent forum full of case laws up there, but trying to sort through all of them is giving me a headache.

I'm looking for caselaw (9th circuit preferably) that prevents a JDB from finding a loophole in a cease communication order when they refer the account to a lawfirm.

I sent a "I dispute this debt", then a "Cease all further communications with me" via CMRRR after the JDB kept trying with their self-serving "yup, you owe it." validation.

So they referred the account to a lawfirm. The lawfirm represents the JDB, so starting all over again with the lawyers collection letter should, in my opinion, be a violation of the cease comm.

I didn't bother to put any "Notice to principal is notice to assignee..." etc on the letters, but I don't think I have to.

I sent the lawyer CMRRR with both "I dispute" and "Cease all further communications", not mentioning the cease comm I had already sent their client. I only put the "I dispute" part in case they decided to add a tradeline. I really just wanted them to either sue me or go away.

The lawyer guy writes me again, with some filled out form verification of the debt from the JDB, only this time with a lesser amount than they had been trying for initially. I'm sure the lawyer guy will say that he had to verify since I disputed, but he violated the cease comm in doing so.

I'm sure the lawyer guy will try to argue that all the consumer protection laws are "re-set" back to the start of the DV process because it was all new to him, but I won't let it go at that. I'm also sure he will say that the letter, with both the dispute and cease comm, contradict each other since he had to verify.

I wrote back CMRRR explaining that "yup, you owe it" isn't good enough for me and pointed out his violation of my cease comm.

If they don't sue, I won't bother, but I'm expecting these geniuses to still try for a default judgement, and I will countersue them both and am hoping for case law to help me.

direred · 04-24-2007, 05:56 AM

I'm going to look for other cases, but the one I found first was:

Clark v. Capital Credit and Collection Services, Inc. (9th circuit, last August, so I only have the slip version and not the official citation).

Looks like you can find a copy here.

It's not quite what you want, but it might be close enough.

ETA: this is one of those cases with a turn of phrase that makes me laugh. I'd quite forgotten that.

"Although we have not before employed the least sophisticated debtor standard to evaluate the meaning a debtor would attach to his or her own conduct, we are convinced that its use is appropriate here."

Maybe not such a good case to use.

BIG TIME · 04-27-2007, 03:14 AM

Thanx, D.

BIG TIME · 04-27-2007, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by direred

"Although we have not before employed the least sophisticated debtor standard to evaluate the meaning a debtor would attach to his or her own conduct, we are convinced that its use is appropriate here."

Geez. That made my nose bleed trying to understand it.

jlynn · 04-27-2007, 08:36 AM

You requested validation, but told them not to communicate with you?

direred · 04-27-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG TIME

Geez. That made my nose bleed trying to understand it.

Well, the dispute was over a psychiatric bill, and based on some of what happened in the case, it seems like she really happened to need a psychiatrist.

BIG TIME · 04-27-2007, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlynn

You requested validation, but told them not to communicate with you?

Well, not on purpose, with the lawyer, I mean. I only put "I dispute this debt" in case they added a tradeline, I wanted them to note it as such.

The real purpose was to get them to cease communications. They can either sue me or go away, but the letter to the lawyer contained both.

I guess they lawyer could argue that he was required to send verification since I disputed the debt, but I also disputed it with the JDB he is representing back in November 06, and they never even tried to verify or validate, they just sent another collection letter, so the 2nd one I sent to them was a cease comm.

BIG TIME · 04-27-2007, 08:16 PM

Here is the timeline:

Nov 06, I get an initial dun from the JDB
I send the dispute letter CMRRR

Feb 07, The JDB sends another basic collection letter, without even an attempt to verify.
So I them sent them the cease comm CMRRR

March 07, Lawyer guy, representing JDB, sends an intial dun, which I think broke the cease comm order I sent his client.
I sent CMRRR to lawer with both the "I dispute" (on the off chance that they add a tradeline) and Cease comm.

April07 Lawyer guy sends some weak "yup, you owe it" he got fro the JDB.